I visit some fringe political forums once in a blue moon just to take a pulse. I was surprised to see a sizable pro-Putin sentiment which is basically a result of the whole “Russia Russia Russia” thing.
Boy who cried wolf is a real thing.
Boy who cried wolf is a real thing.
Within the last decade or so, many of various unrelated political fringes have sort of loosely joined forces together and organized, but instead of being organized in service of a goal, it’s just in service of vague contrariness for the sake of contrariness.
These various groups, no matter how far apart ideologically they are, have sort of all coalesced on “If the ‘Mainstream’ is for it, we are against it, even if we can’t articulate why!”
This argument has worked out just fine. The mainstream is generally against me.
Can you explain who the "boy" was and how they "cried wolf"? Did you read the Senate Intelligence report? PBS: Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election [1].
"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-rus...
1. They're stupid and easy to manipulate.
2. They urgently wanted negative stories to publish about Hillary.
Yes, Russia was trying to influence our election. But, no, Trump isn't some clever Manchurian Candidate taking over our country on behalf of another country.
The right framing here is that famous SNL sketch about Reagan from the 80s, where Reagan acts like a bumbler but then when the doors close suddenly becomes some kind of genius mob figure. That skit was funny, because the "mob boss" version of Reagan was obviously just not true. Same thing for Trump.
Turning to American media. Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.
The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates. That's where the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative by Trump supporters is actually right. Mainstream media's treatment of events like the Russia story, Jan 6, BLM protests, etc. is absolutely biased. That's where the suspicion comes from.
The solution is for mainstream journalists to reduce their bias. Easy places to start:
* Tell the truth about the relative propensity of a white versus black suspect to be shot by police.
* Investigate political candidates in an evenhanded way, and be as honest as possible about errors on stories like Hunter Biden's laptop.
A claim neither I nor the article made. The Trump Campaign, however, had many ties to Russia (Manafort, Rick Gates) and clearly served Russian interests (changing the party platform on Ukraine, ghost written op-eds). Some of them even went to prison for it and you are still trying to claim it never happened. Did we ever figure out why his campaign manager gave campaign polling data to a Russian oligarch?
> Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.
Whatabout-ism in plain sight.
> The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates.
It was a PBS article, so this is not relevant comment. Even so, the article was referencing a release from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee. Why would they repeat Democratic talking points?
Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent. Same goes for Hunter Biden and his stupid laptop and weird deal with that company in Ukraine. I don't think he was a spy. I just think he's an idiot and greedy. He and Trump are the same.
The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.
Edit: Also, you know full well no one is going to read all 1,000 pages of this report. PBS is well known to have a large liberal bias. I downloaded the report and went through a bit of it. One thing I noticed is there's a big partisan split in the report itself about what the report means. Democrats say it essentially means Trump is a Russian spy. Republicans say it shows there was no collusion. Note which story PBS published.
The article is inconsequential, the report it is describing (and the evidence within that report) is the thing you keep dancing around. The report lays out in great detail all of the activities and connections.
> Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent.
Another thing nobody claimed. You have failed to engage in any of the substance. It's just deflection after deflection.
> The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.
Sounds like you've figured it all out. No need to continue.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
Did we ever find out why Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik polling data from the campaign? Did we ever learn why he worked for "free" on the campaign? just to come full circle, he went to prison, in part, for his fraudulent actions helping the Russian government (attempt to) destabilize Ukraine.
> Also, the word is "its" not "it's".
Thanks for that, hope it wasn't too confusing. FYI, the period should be inside the quotes for "it's."